Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!rutgers!att!twitch!hoqax!lmg
From: lmg@hoqax.UUCP (LARRY GEARY)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: cache software
Message-ID: <2178@hoqax.UUCP>
Date: 21 Feb 89 16:48:28 GMT
References: <1081@unm-la.UUCP> <6374@saturn.ucsc.edu> <5748@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: lmg@hoqax.UUCP (45323-LARRY GEARY)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: none
Lines: 22

In article <5748@bsu-cs.UUCP> null@bsu-cs.UUCP (Patrick Bennett) writes:
>
>What's interesting is that the authors of Flash and Pc-Kwik can't figure out
>how they got their results.  Being a VERY satisfied user of Flash, I was
>a little curious about the results, so I called the publishers of Flash
>(Software Masters) and spoke with the author (Davie Reed).  It seems he
>was a little irked about the results and called up the Kwik people to see
>if they knew anything he didn't.  They agreed with him that Flash was just
>as fast as Kwik (and in some instances, faster).

I purchased Flash 5.0 a year or so ago (based on results of an earlier
PC Mag comparison) and was quite underwhelmed. Using Flash's own "demo" program
as a crude benchmark, I found Flash to be 2-4 times slower than Microsoft's
Smartdrive and Compaq's CACHE. The documentation was ignorantly written and
didn't seem to correspond to the software. I gave up in frustration and
used Smartdrive.

Am I missing something? Is Flash 6.0 (or whatever) that much better than
what I bought?
-- 

     lmg@hoqax.att.com    Think globally ... Post locally    att!hoqax!lmg